Capital Punishment

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nor did I say killing in defense was about justice. I was trying to point out an inconsistency: "Killing someone after they killed and invidual" being worse than "Killing someone who is trying to kill an indivual" doesn't seem logical or consistent. Attempted murder is less evil than actual murder? :no:

No... preventing murder is better than punishing murder.

Which brings me back to what I mentioned before: Capital punishment is not about minimizing the amount of lives lost and the victim's family has a right to have justice served through Capital Punishment.

You're right - it's not about minimizing the amount of lives lost.

As for the victim's family, I disagree. Nobody has a right to have any particular sentence meted out on their aggressor (or their loved one's aggressor). The civil courts are the normal way that a people who have been wronged gets redress from the one who wronged them. Criminal law is, IMO, mainly geared toward the good of society as a whole. Certainly the victims are part of that, but their needs and wants are factored in with a number of other aims and goals.

Anyhow, we don't treat any other aspect of criminal law the way you're suggesting. Does the victim of an auto theft get to dictate the sentence of the thief who took his car?

I never said that you couldn't protect the lives of other inmates without killing a convicted murderer. But it is certainly a possibility and happens more often than people would like to think.

And you think that killing people outright is a better solution than, say, more isolation or supervision?

I'm sure in certain scenarios it could. But the difference between say, Jeffrey Dahmer and his victims is: One is an innocent victim who has commited no wrong or harm to their assailent, while the other is guilty murderer being served justice for casuing harm to individuals.

It's not the difference between Jeffrey Dahmer and his victims that matters; it's the difference between Jeffrey Dahmer and his killer. I don't think either of those individuals acted rightly or justly.

And in a lot of states, capital punishment is considered the better choice in regards to justice. The thing I have a problem with is people wanting their alternative to be applied to everyone. What you see as negatives, others see as positives and vice versa.

And I think that certain rights should apply to everyone. The same as I object to any government or society that does not allow the right of habeas corpus, I object to any government or society that executes its criminals.

The right to life is the most fundamental of the universal human rights. I don't think that any universal human right should be deprived from a person without due process and justifiable need to do so. Since I do not see capital punishment as ever necessary, I see it always as an infringement of universal human rights. And defense of rights isn't about the merits of the individual (I completely acknowledge that many people who are put to death are horrible people who have committed awful crimes), it's about the merits of the right itself.

And if the right to life shouldn't be applied to everyone, what is there that should be?

 

[rojse]

Alright, well either way. Most people getting an organ transplant either brought it onto themselves or they have bad genetics. Imagine If I went up to the patients and asked them, "There is the healthy guy waiting in the lobby waiting on his wife to deliver a baby, want me to kill him and steal his liver for ya?", what do you think the patients would say? If I had to kill someone to save five other people (with the far out assumption that they are all in there for work related injuries) this would probably make those 5 people feel extremely guilty for the rest of their lives, not to mention the entire family of the healthy guy would be emotionally torn apart. The families of the 5 people just look their injuries as fate or bad luck (if it's work related), sucks for them, but **** happens. Bottom line is, killing an innocent healthy man is never the right choice. I'm saying kill known criminals with twisted mentalities that are likely to cause more problems for those around them.

I agree with your argument in this case. However, this does not fit in with the idea that the group is more important than the individual.

Sometimes you just know, cameras, confessions, history of violence, things of that sort.

Photographic evidence is good, that is evidence that is hard to contest. However, we don't always have that luxury.

For your statement about a confession, there have been cases of false confessions, or where people confess to crimes they have not committed.

A history of some description is not proof that they committed the crime in question. As always, there is the possibility that the person has rehabilitated in some manner, and the possibility that, although they have done similar things, or things that might escalate to the current crime in question, that they are innocent.

If you found these to be absent, would this be a reason to dismiss the death penalty?

I found an extremely interesting book arguing against capital punishment was John Grisham's "The Innocent Man." Although it was not written as well as the rest of his books, it is a true story, about a person nearly executed based on wrongful evidence, and fraudulent testimony. I wonder how many of those people there are currently in America's death penalty system, about to be executed on wrongful evidence.

 

[rojse]

Then maybe you should broaden your understanding of what "justice" means:

5.the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

A good definition, but nonetheless, I will argue with it.

Firstly, who decides what the deserved punishment or reward is? You? Me? A Judge? An impartial public member? Someone who vocally supports the death penalty? Someone who is vocally against it? The victims? The criminal in question?

Answer me that.

 

[kai]

for vengeance ,it doesnt really work to humanely as possible put a killer out of his misery

for justice, i can think of nothing worse than being incarcerated for the rest of my life

for deterence , it doesnt seem to deter much does it.

for humanity , its a backward step,state sponsered killing doesnt sit well with freedom and liberty in my view

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ugh.

Fantastic arguments from both sides.......and I'm out of frubals!

How about this question to mull over - instead of capital punishment for violent criminals, what would be a better solution to administer justice?

We all know where the OP stands.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[kdrier]

If we believe a person did something crazy enough to be sentenced to life in prison, or a good 30 years, we should just kill them. When you get people in and out of jail for violent crimes, just kill them. Most cases of someone going to jail for double life setences and 50 years and such it's proven they commited the crime. I think society would feel better about it once in was in place. Going to jail for 15 years is not too big of a deal for someone willing to murder someone. I'm afraid to even steal something cause I don't want to go to jail for even two weeks. Murder rate, rapes, and serious crimes is only going up. We need to not worry about feelings and such, and start getting serious, we need to strike fear into these people disturbing the peace. I have a feeling serious criminals are laughing at the justice system.

For all non-violent crimes people should just get fined, maybe if they keep on doing it then throw them in jail for a couple days... Drugs, stealing, Drinking, etc. The point is, once the serious cold blooded killers and rapist were dead instead of being in jail, then jail wouldn't be so bad for people that just smoked some pot, or hit their husband with a fryin pan. I'm not saying kill EVERYONE as soon as we think they murdered or raped someone. Depending on the degree and circumstances of the crime, maybe some criminals would be better off spending a couple years in prison instead of being executed. Due process of law would still be intact. We wouldn't kill someone if it was in question.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

For all non-violent crimes people should just get fined, maybe if they keep on doing it then throw them in jail for a couple days... Drugs, stealing, Drinking, etc. The point is, once the serious cold blooded killers and rapist were dead instead of being in jail, then jail wouldn't be so bad for people that just smoked some pot, or hit their husband with a fryin pan. I'm not saying kill EVERYONE as soon as we think they murdered or raped someone. Depending on the degree and circumstances of the crime, maybe some criminals would be better off spending a couple years in prison instead of being executed. Due process of law would still be intact. We wouldn't kill someone if it was in question.

How is this any different than our current state of affairs?




Peace,
Mystic

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How about this question to mull over - instead of capital punishment for violent criminals, what would be a better solution to administer justice?

Good question... unfortunately I don't have one single answer. I think it depends greatly on what the offense actually was.

To try and wrap my brain around this, I did a quick Google search and found a page on the Texas Department of Criminal Justice site that has detailed information on every person executed since 1982.

I looked at the most recent ten, and I was surprised to see one major trend: only one finished high school. Now... a few were 18 at the time of the offense, so I suppose they could have been high school students, but there's still a significant correlation.

Now... I'm not saying that "society" is to blame for their crimes or anything like that, but I think that if there is a solution to the problem, it lies well before the offenses are actually committed.

 

[kdrier]

How is this any different than our current state of affairs?

It's quite similar actually. I guess the difference is that the current state of affairs is too much in the "grey" area about it. We need to start becoming more "white and black" with it. That is, make it a bit more extreme for violent crimes, and much less extreme for non-violent crimes. You have drug dealers going to jail for five years, and murders for not much longer.

 

[ravenstrike]

Then let me ask you this : if you knew, KNEW, beyond a doubt, that if you let a person live, he would kill three or more people, would you walk away, leave him to it? The answer, the ethical answer should be no. Law and order must stand. Killing a murderer is not done through hate, it is a celebration of civilization. Do not, however, mistake killing with justice. People rarely have the stomach for justice, true justice. People surrender their rights when they kill, or rape. Allowing them anything is the most monstrous mistake that can be made. Grant them not peace, not humanity, and most certainly not mercy. Mercy is a contingency plan, devised by the guilty in the eventuality that they are caught. However, let us take things as they come. We cannot simply assume that killing is wrong. The situation's must be taken in context.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Then let me ask you this : if you knew, KNEW, beyond a doubt, that if you let a person live, he would kill three or more people, would you walk away, leave him to it?

No, no.......no one is suggesting that a person who will no doubt kill again be re-introduced into society. It has little to do with ethics and more to do with common sense.

What I am suggesting is life imprisonment for violent criminals who are without hope of rehabilitation.

The answer, the ethical answer should be no. Law and order must stand. Killing a murderer is not done through hate, it is a celebration of civilization. Do not, however, mistake killing with justice. People rarely have the stomach for justice, true justice. People surrender their rights when they kill, or rape. Allowing them anything is the most monstrous mistake that can be made. Grant them not peace, not humanity, and most certainly not mercy. Mercy is a contingency plan, devised by the guilty in the eventuality that they are caught. However, let us take things as they come. We cannot simply assume that killing is wrong. The situation's must be taken in context.

I'm not sure about that. Mercy is a virtue, much like charity, honesty, and selfless service. And it is a virtue that citizens and those who govern us can and should aspire to.

If a society is willing to put another person to death, what is to stop this society from public executions? From executions that emphasize the pain and torture of the condemned in the name of justice? Why not re-institute having the condemned drawn and quartered?

To say that justice must be "black-and-white" is a frightening concept - remember, the same system that can easily place judgement on another is just as likely to place this kind of trigger-happy judgement on you or me if either one of us is seen as a "threat" to society.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Mister_T]

No... preventing murder is better than punishing murder.

Even worded that way, the logic still does not make sense. Killing someone for prevention being morally better than killing someone who has suceeded in murdering his victim seems morally backwards.

Nobody has a right to have any particular sentence meted out on their aggressor (or their loved one's aggressor). As for the victim's family, I disagree. Nobody has a right to have any particular sentence meted out on their aggressor (or their loved one's aggressor). The civil courts are the normal way that a people who have been wronged gets redress from the one who wronged them. Criminal law is, IMO, mainly geared toward the good of society as a whole. Certainly the victims are part of that, but their needs and wants are factored in with a number of other aims and goals.

Citizens in the U.S. have a right to see justice served. If the you push to seek the death penalty and capital punishment is permissable by your state and the courts and prosecuters agree that capital punishment is the punisment that fits the crime, then that right is being fulfilled.

Anyhow, we don't treat any other aspect of criminal law the way you're suggesting.

Sure we do, within the limits set by the law of course. What do you think "pressing charges" means? You have the right to press the minimum or maxim amount of charges.

And you think that killing people outright is a better solution than, say, more isolation or supervision?

Killing a convicted murderer is more deserving than housing and feeding him, IMO.

It's not the difference between Jeffrey Dahmer and his victims that matters; it's the difference between Jeffrey Dahmer and his killer. I don't think either of those individuals acted rightly or justly.

Let's get back on track with this. We were talking about whether the victim's family was fulfilling a pleasure or personal gain from capital punishment.

And I think that certain rights should apply to everyone. The same as I object to any government or society that does not allow the right of habeas corpus, I object to any government or society that executes its criminals.

And that is your right.

The right to life is the most fundamental of the universal human rights. I don't think that any universal human right should be deprived from a person without due process and justifiable need to do so. Since I do not see capital punishment as ever necessary, I see it always as an infringement of universal human rights.

Where is the due process when you kill someone in defense? I agree that the right to life is the most fundamental right of humans.I also believe that when you are willing to take a life in cold blood, that your forfeit that right and apparently, so do a lot of states in the U.S. Eye for an eye is justified in this instance, IMO.

And defense of rights isn't about the merits of the individual (I completely acknowledge that many people who are put to death are horrible people who have committed awful crimes), it's about the merits of the right itself.

And as I stated above, I believe you forfeit your right to live when you take the life of someone in cold blood.

And if the right to life shouldn't be applied to everyone, what is there that should be?

If the murderer respected his victim's right to life to begin with, then we wouldn't have this problem. He had no respect for a persons life and I don't see any reason why we should show any for his.

 

[Mister_T]

Firstly, who decides what the deserved punishment or reward is? You? Me? A Judge? An impartial public member?

All four have that potential.

Someone who vocally supports the death penalty? Someone who is vocally against it? The victims? The criminal in question?

All of those could play a part too.

Answer me that.

I just did.

 

[kdrier]

People rarely have the stomach for justice, true justice. People surrender their rights when they kill, or rape. Allowing them anything is the most monstrous mistake that can be made. Grant them not peace, not humanity, and most certainly not mercy.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Throwing people in jail is fine to an extent. What is not fine is when the jails are becoming overpopulated, and it takes time and resources provided by hard working citizens to keep these violent criminals alive in a cage for the rest of their lives. I don't agree with caging anything for a long time period, either it can live in society peacefully or it should die, bottom line. If a dog can't be tamed and it bites people, kill that rapid beast. Keeping these lunatics alive in some cage is just bringing down society, imagine if all the time and resources provided to house criminals was spent to improve the lives of the good people of society.

I'm not saying justice should be completely black and white, there will always be grey areas, I'm just saying it needs to get more black and white than it is now.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I think capital punishment is the easy way out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even worded that way, the logic still does not make sense. Killing someone for prevention being morally better than killing someone who has suceeded in murdering his victim seems morally backwards.

I really don't see why you say that.

Killing someone in defense is not a matter of justice or punishment; it's a matter of maintenance of a person's rights: all people have a right to life, and all people have a right to protect their life. When these rights come into conflict (i.e. if I cannot maintain my right to life along with an attacker's right to life, because he'll kill me unless I kill him, and no non-lethal means would stop him from doing so), then one set of rights has to prevail over the other.

Citizens in the U.S. have a right to see justice served. If the you push to seek the death penalty and capital punishment is permissable by your state and the courts and prosecuters agree that capital punishment is the punisment that fits the crime, then that right is being fulfilled.

All citizens have the right to live in a just society, not just victims of crime and their loved ones. I think that fundamental rights are the basis of a just society. Chief among these is the right to life. Needlessly taking the life of any person, even a criminal, diminishes the universality of that right, and therefore the right itself.

Sure we do, within the limits set by the law of course. What do you think "pressing charges" means? You have the right to press the minimum or maxim amount of charges.

Does "pressing charges" in that way actually have legal meaning in the US outside of movies? It doesn't here; under Canadian law (and IIRC, British law as well), because crime is seen as harm to society overall, it's up to society overall, or rather its representatives acting on its behalf (i.e. the Crown Attorney/D.A.) to decide whether or not to indict the accused, regardless of how the victims feel about the matter.

Killing a convicted murderer is more deserving than housing and feeding him, IMO.

But you also recognize that killing a convicted murderer is a more extreme action than imprisoning him, right? I think that when we go up the scale of severity, we need to have good reason to do so.

Let's get back on track with this. We were talking about whether the victim's family was fulfilling a pleasure or personal gain from capital punishment.

Actually, I thought we were talking about whether vigilante killers were fulfilling a pleasure or personal gain.

Where is the due process when you kill someone in defense? I agree that the right to life is the most fundamental right of humans.I also believe that when you are willing to take a life in cold blood, that your forfeit that right and apparently, so do a lot of states in the U.S. Eye for an eye is justified in this instance, IMO.

You're right - there is no due process when you kill someone in defense; the situation doesn't allow it. In a "him or me" situation, someone is going to die. Someone's rights are going to prevail over another's. Do you really have a problem with the victim's rights prevailing over the attacker's?

And as I stated above, I believe you forfeit your right to live when you take the life of someone in cold blood.

And I don't believe that anyone ever forfeits their fundamental rights, including their right to life. The only time that it's acceptable to infringe on someone's rights is when to not do so would create a greater infringement: for example, we deprive people of liberty through imprisonment to prevent crime (which, by its nature, is an infringement on the rights of the victim).

If the murderer respected his victim's right to life to begin with, then we wouldn't have this problem. He had no respect for a persons life and I don't see any reason why we should show any for his.

My reason is that I am better than he is. I don't consider some scumbag murderer to be the proper benchmark to set my morality by.

 

[Mister_T]

I really don't see why you say that.

Killing someone in defense is not a matter of justice or punishment; it's a matter of maintenance of a person's rights: all people have a right to life, and all people have a right to protect their life. When these rights come into conflict (i.e. if I cannot maintain my right to life along with an attacker's right to life, because he'll kill me unless I kill him, and no non-lethal means would stop him from doing so), then one set of rights has to prevail over the other.

It is morally backwards because you have the "right" to kill someone who hasn't commited murder yet, but your "right" to kill ceases if a person has already commited murder. Legalities, rights and justice aside, the fact is in both cases, you killed someone, plain and simple. Either killing a murderer is wrong period, or it isn't. Otherwise you're creating a double standard.

All citizens have the right to live in a just society, not just victims of crime and their loved ones. I think that fundamental rights are the basis of a just society. Chief among these is the right to life. Needlessly taking the life of any person, even a criminal, diminishes the universality of that right, and therefore the right itself.

Who says citizens can't live in a just society with capital punishment in place? U.S. accomplishes this just fine. Everyone has a right to life, but people as a society believe that you forfeit that right when you take a life in cold blood, in certain states.

Does "pressing charges" in that way actually have legal meaning in the US outside of movies?

No, we base all of our laws on John Wayne and spaghetti westerns Sorry, I find that to be a rather ignorant statement. If you do your research, you'd find that "pressing charges" is a very real part of our legal sytem.

It doesn't here; under Canadian law (and IIRC, British law as well), because crime is seen as harm to society overall, it's up to society overall, or rather its representatives acting on its behalf (i.e. the Crown Attorney/D.A.) to decide whether or not to indict the accused, regardless of how the victims feel about the matter.

Crime is seen as harm to society here as well. We also give victims the right to seek justice if they choose with the help of lawyers the district attorney. Even if the victim chooses not to press charges or seek justice, the District Attorney more than likely will still pursue it because it is a harm to society.

Capital punishment is also up to society. It's not like the U.S. Fedral government is imposing capital punishment as being a mandatory part of each states legal system. The states vote on that measure individually. Not all states allow capital punishment as a result.

But you also recognize that killing a convicted murderer is a more extreme action than imprisoning him, right? I think that when we go up the scale of severity, we need to have good reason to do so.

Executing a drug dealer is extreme. Executing a serial killer who has been on death row for twenty years and goes through the appeals process is not extreme, it is the justice that society found him to deserve, which is good enough reason in my eyes if there is absolutely not doubt whatsoever that the individual is guilty of doing so.

Actually, I thought we were talking about whether vigilante killers were fulfilling a pleasure or personal gain.

You had stated earlier that you viewed a family's wanting of capital punishment as an act of vigilante vengence.

You're right - there is no due process when you kill someone in defense; the situation doesn't allow it. In a "him or me" situation, someone is going to die. Someone's rights are going to prevail over another's. Do you really have a problem with the victim's rights prevailing over the attacker's?

I have no problem with "the victim's rights prevailing over the attackers." I have a problem with the glaring double standard of your argument and the selective choosing of when something is acceptable that comes with it, in order to for "said action" to conform with your own personal beliefs.

And I don't believe that anyone ever forfeits their fundamental rights, including their right to life.The only time that it's acceptable to infringe on someone's rights is when to not do so would create a greater infringement: for example, we deprive people of liberty through imprisonment to prevent crime (which, by its nature, is an infringement on the rights of the victim).

How is it possible to believe that "no one ever forfeits their fundamental rights" (notice the emphasis on "ever"), and "We can deprive someone their rights when (insert action) happens" without creating a double standard? Assuming that my understanding of the word "ever" is correct; If you don't believe that a person's rights should ever be taken from them, then no act ever makes right infringement acceptable.

My reason is that I am better than he is. I don't consider some scumbag murderer to be the proper benchmark to set my morality by.

So if I kill my loved ones murderer upon discovering him in my home, I am just as bad as someone who kidnaps a child and tortures and rapes them before killing? Sorry, I don't think so. If you can't see the moral difference between a child killer and and person who killed their loved one murderer out of revenge, then your thinking is skewed in my opinion. The morality of a person who kills in revenge is the "morally better" of the two.

 

[kai]

were talking about state sponsered killing here , no country will ever be civilised until it ends such a practice and most of those that advocate it have probably never seen their food killed let alone a human being

 

[Mister_T]

were talking about state sponsered killing here , no country will ever be civilised until it ends such a practice and most of those that advocate it have probably never seen their food killed let alone a human being

A gross generalization on your part.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is morally backwards because you have the "right" to kill someone who hasn't commited murder yet, but your "right" to kill ceases if a person has already commited murder. Legalities, rights and justice aside, the fact is in both cases, you killed someone, plain and simple. Either killing a murderer is wrong period, or it isn't. Otherwise you're creating a double standard.

No, I'm not. My standard is this: killing is only acceptable when it is absolutely necessary. In the case of self defense or defense of others, it is necessary (providing, of course, that non-lethal action isn't sufficient). In the case of an incarcerated criminal, it's not. The standard applies equally in both situations.

Who says citizens can't live in a just society with capital punishment in place? U.S. accomplishes this just fine. Everyone has a right to life, but people as a society believe that you forfeit that right when you take a life in cold blood, in certain states.

The United States is, IMO, less just with capital punishment than it would be without.

No, we base all of our laws on John Wayne and spaghetti westerns Sorry, I find that to be a rather ignorant statement. If you do your research, you'd find that "pressing charges" is a very real part of our legal sytem.

I had to ask - plenty of people here assume that they can "press charges", even though the decision isn't up to them.

Crime is seen as harm to society here as well. We also give victims the right to seek justice if they choose with the help of lawyers the district attorney. Even if the victim chooses not to press charges or seek justice, the District Attorney more than likely will still pursue it because it is a harm to society.

So, effectively, you have the same situation as we do: DAs can pursue cases over the objections of the victims or victims' families, and they have the discretion to choose not to pursue a case, even if the victims or victims' families want the case to go forward.

Capital punishment is also up to society. It's not like the U.S. Fedral government is imposing capital punishment as being a mandatory part of each states legal system. The states vote on that measure individually. Not all states allow capital punishment as a result.

Yes, I realize that. Despite this, the principles that our societies are based on recognize that society and government's power to enact laws and rules should have certain limits. Just as I believe that a person should have the right to freedom of religion, regardless of the majority view, I believe that a person - any person - should have the right to life.

Executing a drug dealer is extreme. Executing a serial killer who has been on death row for twenty years and goes through the appeals process is not extreme, it is the justice that society found him to deserve, which is good enough reason in my eyes if there is absolutely not doubt whatsoever that the individual is guilty of doing so.

I was speaking in relative terms. Executing a prisoner is a greater punishment than life imprisionment; do you agree?

I believe that in the choice between two sentences, if either one would accomplish all the goals of the punishment (whatever you consider those goals to be, e.g. deterrence, rehabilitation, even "giving the criminal what he deserves", for the purposes of discussion), we should choose the lesser one.

Say a criminal has been found guilty of a crime and we have a choice between a 5 year prison sentence and a 10 year sentence. If we want to give him the 10 year sentence, we have to establish that the extra five years will actually do some net good (however you measure "good").

The same rationale applies to capital punishment: if you want the more extreme measure of executing criminals rather than imprisoning them for life, I think it's up to you to demonstrate that the overall effect of the increase in severity from life in prison to execution is positive.

You had stated earlier that you viewed a family's wanting of capital punishment as an act of vigilante vengence.

None of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims were in a position to engage in vigilante vengeance - they were dead before his trial ever started, except for Tracy Edwards (though Dahmer was never charged with her attempted murder, and attempted murder wasn't a capital offense in Wisconsin anyway, AFAIK).

The point that I was trying to raise is that if revenge is considered "pleasure or personal gain", then vigilante killings, which you put on the same moral level as capital punishment, would be considered "cold-blooded murder", if we go by the descriptions you gave for each.

I have no problem with "the victim's rights prevailing over the attackers." I have a problem with the glaring double standard of your argument and the selective choosing of when something is acceptable that comes with it, in order to for "said action" to conform with your own personal beliefs.

I don't see any double standard. It seems like I'm viewing the issue differently that you are, but I don't think I'm being inconsistent. I think everything I've said can generally fall under the umbrella rule "maintain and protect all rights as well as you are able". Because I recognize my own right to life, this allows me to kill an attacker if otherwise he would kill me - the only choices available involve someone's rights being deprived, so I choose the best of two bad options. Because I recognize even a criminal's right to life, this allows me to oppose the death penalty, because I do not believe that it is the best option of the ones available.

How is it possible to believe that "no one ever forfeits their fundamental rights" (notice the emphasis on "ever"), and "We can deprive someone their rights when (insert action) happens" without creating a double standard? Assuming that my understanding of the word "ever" is correct; If you don't believe that a person's rights should ever be taken from them, then no act ever makes right infringement acceptable.

Unless not infringing on them would create some other infringement of someone's rights. Sometimes rights do come into conflict with each other, and we can't have both prevail.

If I'm in a "kill or be killed" situation, either my attacker or I will be denied our right to life. In that case, there is no middle ground where we can both maintain all our rights. All the available options involve someone being denied a fundamental right.

This different from capital punishment: regardless of whether you kill the criminal or not, nobody else's rights are affected. Capital punishment does not save any lives, allow anybody's freedom, or do anything to further anything that we normally call a "right".

So if I kill my loved ones murderer upon discovering him in my home, I am just as bad as someone who kidnaps a child and tortures and rapes them before killing? Sorry, I don't think so. If you can't see the moral difference between a child killer and and person who killed their loved one murderer out of revenge, then your thinking is skewed in my opinion. The morality of a person who kills in revenge is the "morally better" of the two.

I do see a moral difference. And while I view the killing of a child as much worse than the revenge killing you describe, I don't view the revenge killing as good.

I don't think you would be "just as bad", but, IMO, it would be "morally better" to apprehend the criminal without killing him, if you were able to do so.